'Danger!
Danger! Danger!' Is Trump's team alarmed about their own case?
Trump
impeachment
The
president’s lawyer Jay Sekulow warned senators that the republic was in peril
but testimony from John Bolton could devastate his defence
David Smith
David Smith
in Washington
@smithinamerica
Tue 28 Jan
2020 23.04 GMTLast modified on Wed 29 Jan 2020 02.07 GMT
“Danger. Danger! DANGER!” Jay Sekulow, a
lawyer defending Donald Trump at his impeachment trial in the US Senate, turned
himself into a human klaxon on Tuesday, repeating the word “danger” 15 times.
By his
lights, Sekulow was warning Democrats of the danger of a partisan, politically
motivated impeachment that would lower the bar for imposing the ultimate
sanction – the political equivalent of the death penalty – on future presidents.
But another
interpretation would be that the combative attorney and talkshow host was
warning Republicans of the danger allowing of John Bolton, the former national
security adviser, to testify at the trial, potentially causing the president’s
entire defence to unravel.
Sekulow’s
argument went something like this. Look, what Bolton says isn’t true. But even
if it was true, it’s still not impeachable. Not that it is true, you
understand. It really isn’t. But let’s just say, for the sake of argument, it
was true. You still can’t impeach for that. Got it? Am I clear?
The trial
had been going so well for the White House until the New York Times’ weekend
revelation that Bolton, in an upcoming book, writes that Trump did indeed make
military aid to Ukraine conditional on the Ukrainian government announcing an
investigation into his potential election rival, Joe Biden.
Now there
is a Capitol Hill clamour for Bolton to testify. The defence spent most of
Monday avoiding the mustachioed elephant in the room until Alan Dershowitz –
whose past clients include OJ Simpson, Jeffrey Epstein, Roman Polanski, Mike
Tyson and Harvey Weinstein – finally uttered his name.
Sekulow
took up the cause on day seven of the trial. Standing at the lectern, with blue
tie and blue pocket handkerchief, he began: “What we are involved in here, as
we conclude, is perhaps the most solemn of duties under our constitutional
framework: the trial of the leader of the free world and the duly elected
president of the United States.
“It is not
a game of leaks and unsourced manuscripts. That’s politics, unfortunately, and
[Alexander] Hamilton,” – yes, him again – “put impeachment in the hands of this
body, the Senate, precisely and specifically to be above that fray. This is the
greatest deliberative body on Earth.”
He added:
“In our presentation so far, you’ve now heard from legal scholars from a
variety of schools of thought, from a variety of political backgrounds. But
they do have a common theme with a dire warning: danger, danger, danger!
“To lower
the bar of impeachment based on these articles of impeachment would impact the functioning
of our constitutional republic and the framework of that constitution for
generations.”
It was a
point he made over and over again. This attempt to take the moral high ground
was pretty rich coming from a team that has pushed bogus conspiracy theories
about Biden.
Sekulow
also repeatedly entreated senators to put themselves in Trump’s shoes. Brimming
with indignation, he ran through a parade of Fox News villains: the Steele
dossier, FBI agents Lisa Page and Peter Strzok, Fisa warrants, former FBI
director James Comey and special counsel Robert Mueller. The unspoken message
was that Trump is the victim of deep state conspiracy.
What, you
may ask, did all this have to do with coercing Ukraine? Sekulow insisted: “You
can’t view this case in a vacuum. You are being asked to remove a duly elected
president of the United States and you’re being asked to do it in an election
year.”
Indeed,
Democrats would agree this is not occurring in a vacuum. During their
presentation, House managers carefully explained how Trump’s bullying of
Ukraine, which is in constant peril from Russia, goes hand in hand with his
peculiar affection for Vladimir Putin. Trump’s phone call to Ukraine’s
president came a day after Mueller’s congressional testimony.
Inevitably,
Sekulow griped about the backlash against his team’s criticism of Biden and his
son Hunter, who was on the board of a Ukrainian gas company. “Do we have, like,
a Biden-free zone?” he demanded. “You can impeach a president for asking a
question?”
Then he
returned to the Bolton imbroglio. Sekulow dismissed “an unpublished manuscript
that maybe some reporters have an idea of maybe what it says ... I don’t know
what you’d call that. I’d call it inadmissible, but that’s what it is … You
cannot impeach a president on an unsourced allegation.”
Sekulow
quoted Trump and Mike Pence’s office denying Bolton’s allegation. He warned
against an impeachment based on policy differences. Democrats looked
underwhelmed. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota whispered behind her hand to Chris
Coons of Delaware, who smiled.
Again that
cry of “Danger, danger, danger!”
Klobuchar
sighed.
Meanwhile,
Senator Mitt Romney, among those who may well vote to call Bolton and other
witnesses, was reportedly told off for breaking Senate rules by bringing in a
bottle of chocolate milk. He later came back with it in a glass instead.
In what may
come to look like wild overconfidence, the defence rested its case after using
less than half its allotted 24 hours. Clips of Democrats warning against the
Bill Clinton impeachment two decades ago were played, culminating with Chuck
Schumer, now Senate minority leader, saying: “My fear is that when a Republican
wins the White House, Democrats will demand payback.”
The White
House counsel, Pat Cipollone, looked at Schumer and said: “You were right.” The
senator’s face remained a mask frozen with a bemused smile.
But this
could not be described as a barnstorming finish. Cipollone claimed they had
made a “compelling case” and pleaded for senators to “respect and defend the
sacred right of every American to vote and to choose their president” a few
months from now.
There was
an outbreak of muttering among Democrats. It was as if, collectively, they were
saying: is that all you got?
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário